Professional Documents
Culture Documents
recovery of possession of the same, and asked that judgment the rendered sentencing the
defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the two aforesaid properties and to pay her, as damages, the
sum of P60, the value of the products of the land which the latter failed to collect, and to the
payment of the costs.
The counsel for the defendant, by writing of July 14, 1909, reproduced in all its parts his answer
contained in his writing of August 19, 1908, to the complaint preceding the last amended one,
and after a general denial of the essential points which served as a basis for the complaint,
alleged as a special defense: that the lands described in paragraph No. 1 of the amended
complaint were not in the possession of the defendant, according to the area and boundaries of
the same therein expressed; that the two parcels of land held by the defendant and which
apparently were those claimed by the plaintiff, located in the sitio of Monserrate, of the district
of Dingras, had different areas and boundaries from those of the lands which were the subject of
the complaint, for one of them measured 170 meters in circumference, equivalent to 7 ares and
70 centares, bounded on the north by the land of Esteban Castro, and on the south, east, and west
by that of Marcos Manibug, and the other parcel measured 190 meters in circumference
equivalent to 17 ares and 20 centares, and was bounded on the north and east by the plaintiffs
own lands, and on the south and west by those of Marcos Manibug; that the said two parcels of
land belonged exclusively to the defendant, through acquisition by purchase, one of them from
the brothers Angel and Felix Reyes, and the other from the sisters Marcelina and Guillerma
Lampituc; and that by virtue of this title he had, for more than twenty years, been in the public,
peaceable, and uninterrupted possession of the said lands, in the quality of owner thereof. The
defendant therefore prayed that in due course of time judgment be rendered in his favor by
sentencing the plaintiff to perpetual silence and to the payment of the costs.
The case having been heard and oral evidence adduced by both parties, the documents exhibited
being attached to the record, the court, in view of the evidence, rendered judgment on August 18,
1909, wherein it found that the plaintiff was the owner of the parcels of land described in the
amended complaint and sentenced the defendant to deliver them to the plaintiff. The costs were
not assessed against either party. From this judgment the defendants counsel appealed and
moved for the annulment of the said judgment and the holding of a new trial. This motion was
denied, exception was taken by the defendant and the latters counsel filed the proper bill of
exceptions which was approved, certified, and forwarded to the clerk of this court.
This is a possessory action brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of two parcels
of land usurped several years ago by the defendant and which are situated in the sitio named
Monserrate, of the pueblo of Dingras, Ilocos Norte.
For the purpose of proving her ownership to the two parcels of land the recovery of which is
sought, the plaintiff exhibited her title of composition with the State, issued by the government
of the province by delegation of the Director General de Administracion Civil, on July 19, 1895,
which title was shown to have been recorder in the property registry on the 16th of August of the
same year.
The two said parcels of land, judging from their respective boundaries and areas, are the first and
fifth parcels specified in the aforementioned composition title, and not withstanding the denial of
the defendant and the allegations set forth in his answer that the said two parcels of land can in
no manner be identified with any of the five parcels of land described in the said ownership title,
it is nevertheless certain that the description of the two parcels of land detained by the defendant
and claimed by the plaintiff, is in accord with the description of the aforementioned first and fifth
parcels as they appear in the said ownership title.
The defendant, while denying that he usurped any property whatever belonging to the plaintiff,
alleged that the two parcels of land which he possessed in the aforesaid sitio of Monserrate had
different boundaries and areas, and, in order to prove that they belonged exclusively to him,
exhibited three private documents, marked with the letters A, B, and C, as titles proving the
acquisition of the said lands from the persons whose names are expressed therein. These
documents, translations of which are found in record, do not appear to have been duly legalized,
do not state the boundaries of the respective lands to which they relate, nor are the signatures of
their makers authenticated.
It is unquestionable that the plaintiff, Victoria Suguitan, held as owner lands in the said sitio
which are those described in the title aforementioned, inasmuch as it appears in the record
attached thereto, made by the provincial board of composition for the lands of Ilocos Norte, prior
to the issuance of the said title and subsequent to the publication of the required notices and the
serving of summons on the owners of the adjoining lands, that, on April 4, 1894, the lands, the
subject of the composition, two of which are concerned in this litigation, were inspected and
examined by the teniente de sementeras, a subordinate agent of the Government, and an expert
surveyor, who went to the said barrio of Monserrate, and as a result of the said inspection the
board aforementioned certified to the capitan municipal on February 28, 1895, that Victoria
Suguitan had, for the past twelve years, held and had been cultivating the lands, the subject of the
proceedings, which were examined, and had acquired them by purchase from Juana and
Guillerma Bonoan who also had and cultivated them some forty years before. So the said lands
have been held the cultivated since more than fifty years, and therefore the plaintiffs ownership
right therein is evident and there exist no legal reason whatever which may prevent her being
recognized as and declared to be the sole legitimate owner of the two parcels of land in question,
among others, and which must be restored to her by their deforciant, the defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, and because the judgment appealed from is found to be in accord with
the law, it is proper, in our opinion, to affirm the same, as we hereby do, with the costs against
the Appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.